Balk, Steven

There are no biomarkers predictive of resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel validated for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We assessed the association between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for patients with mCRPC, using circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Patients with ≥1 plasma sample drawn within 12 months before starting docetaxel (cohort A) or cabazitaxel (cohort B) for mCRPC were identified from the Dana–Farber Cancer Institute IRB approved database. Sparse whole genome sequencing was performed on the selected cfDNA samples and tumor fractions were estimated using the computational tool ichorCNA. We evaluated the association between ABCB1 amplification or other copy number alterations and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. Of the selected 176 patients, 45 samples in cohort A and 21 samples in cohort B had sufficient tumor content. No significant association was found between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel (p = 0.58; odds ratio (OR) = 1.49) or cabazitaxel (p = 0.97; OR = 1.06). No significant association was found between exploratory biomarkers and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. In this study, ABCB1 amplification did not predict primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for mCRPC. Future studies including ABCB1 amplification in a suite of putative biomarkers and a larger cohort may aid in drawing definitive conclusions.

Abstract Purpose: The role of immune-oncologic mechanisms of racial disparities in prostate cancer remains understudied. Limited research exists to evaluate the molecular underpinnings of immune differences in African American men (AAM) and European American men (EAM) prostate tumor microenvironment (TME). Experimental Design: A total of 1,173 radiation-naïve radical prostatectomy samples with whole transcriptome data from the Decipher GRID registry were used. Transcriptomic expressions of 1,260 immune-specific genes were selected to assess immune-oncologic differences between AAM and EAM prostate tumors. Race-specific differential expression of genes was assessed using a rank test, and intergene correlational matrix and gene set enrichment was used for pathway analysis. Results: AAM prostate tumors have significant enrichment of major immune-oncologic pathways, including proinflammatory cytokines, IFNα, IFNγ, TNFα signaling, ILs, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition. AAM TME has higher total immune content score (ICSHIGH) compared with 0 (37.8% vs. 21.9%, P = 0.003). AAM tumors also have lower DNA damage repair and are genomically radiosensitive as compared with EAM. IFITM3 (IFN-inducible transmembrane protein 3) was one of the major proinflammatory genes overexpressed in AAM that predicted increased risk of biochemical recurrence selectively for AAM in both discovery [HRAAM = 2.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21–4.34; P = 0.01] and validation (HRAAM = 2.42; 95% CI, 1.52–3.86; P = 0.0001) but not in EAM. Conclusions: Prostate tumors of AAM manifest a unique immune repertoire and have significant enrichment of proinflammatory immune pathways that are associated with poorer outcomes. Observed immune-oncologic differences can aid in a genomically adaptive approach to treating prostate cancer in AAM.